Did we BREAK the Living Legend System? | Flesh and Blood TCG | Go Again! Ep582

[@DMArmada]

This was a fantastic breakdown of the issue and I really like some of the solutions that you put forward at the end!

[@DiceCommando]

Glad you liked it!

[@andrewbingemann3504]

I think there are other options too - a point cap could kick in after accumulating a certain number of points. You could also allocate ll points based on ranking (wins in a season). This would allow you to completely control the flow of heroes LLing.

[@StanDerg]

Great Discussion! LSS most definitely has a complicated situation on their hand with all this balancing and weighing the pros and cons. But I trust them more than any other TCG company to do what is needed.

[@DiceCommando]

Absolutely!

[@DamonHart]

These last couple of sets have been overtuned a bit. Maybe it's just me but I like it better when a hero starts out with less power and they build it up. I also think with the amount of heroes it's hard to give cards to every hero that needs it. Olympia, Betsy, and Fai come to mind

[@qp7888]

Why would that incentivize people to buy a set if the hero’s can’t compete with the meta at the time

[@nelpolian3863]

What an absolutely fantastic break down. I really enjoyed this video and earnestly agree with all the points you've made. Thank you!

[@DiceCommando]

I'm glad you enjoyed it!

[@jiffyb333]

Definitely agree with you about reusing older heroes. It was super exciting to see Rhinar reintroduced with set appropriate art and to get an expansion of where he is at as the lore timeline progresses. Plus it's exciting as a fan of those heroes to see them get a full sets worth of expanded options, especially as a commoner player the draft set expansion of a hero drastically widens their play possibilities. They could always implement an inelegant system of allowing new powerful heroes to accumulate points but not be able to rotate out until 15 months have passed. It will be interesting to see how they tackle this problem going forward, because I imagine if they were going to pivot to using older heroes and draft sets we would only start to notice that in a year and a half or so.

[@DiceCommando]

It would be nice to see more of the older heroes!

[@ftgrimm1016]

Love this video! Have an idea, What if LSS abolish the LL System only in Blitz? With a little rework for the format you can make it the REAL introduction format for new players, draft and limited would not be a issue anymore since young heroes can not rotate and only release the adult CC version if needed in that format? Example if you release a new young Fai, they can later release in a Armory deck or another product the Adult version of that Fai for CC, after the old one its just gone.

[@iangc49]

Great analysis. Earned my subscription. I love the ideia of reimplementing old heroes.

[@DiceCommando]

Glad you enjoyed the video!

[@kertanos]

My solution would be to rework the Living legends system to not be a "attain 1000 pts to retire" system but more a "X best heroes at the end of the season/year retire". That way you can regulate velocity and bloat much more efficiently. You can still use expansion slot to push lower heroes, you can design a set with a lesser power level to make old heroes retire faster, and you can define LL points per event depending on how you think these events matter

[@bblappalappa3598]

Andrew, credit to you for making a video on such a fascinating and nuanced topic! I would love to know James’ (and the development team’s) ideal # of heroes in relation to the time needed to adequately test the introduction of new cards, heroes, etc. All things considered, I think LSS has done a wonderful job in balancing these elements, but the maintenance of said balance remains a daunting and tenuous prospect. Go Commando!

[@DiceCommando]

I have immense faith in LSS!

[@filsmartins]

I’m really glad that you brought this issue to light. Everyone wants to play they favourite for as much as possible, but there’s a lot of dead weight in legal heroes. And this bloat has been especially problematic when you’re trying to prepare for competitive events. I know you won’t see every legal hero, but I don’t think anyone would be comfortable not having at least a draft of a gameplan for each hero and that is very hard when every season you have more and more. Maybe LSS needs to be a bit more aggressive with the expansion slots

[@nerdcoregaming6468]

I really think they should make a point to reuse Heroes. Aside from limiting bloat, I'd love to have multiple arts for each character like Rhinar.

[@DiceCommando]

Re-use would help a lot, for sure.

[@neutro0005]

What I wanted to see was old heroes become LL before the new ones, Bravo has been at the top for some time and doesn't go to LL, so if you put Guardian cards to fortify Bravo, you end up improving Victor who has a better mechanics than Bravo and who has better mechanics than Betsy's, and for me, the solution to this case would be to put specializations well above the average for these old heroes to become LL and be good to play at the LL level, otherwise You cannot filter the number of heroes in the CC and the only way to rotate the hero is to reach that margin of 1000 points

[@thedastardlydrod4026]

great video, insights, and solutions! i am not sure how big of an issue the bloat is. i know locally we had a tremendous drop off in player base with quick hero rotations. Our competitive players prefer the rotation but our more casuals end up very disappointed and stopped playing. i would love to see a baseline hero for each class that doesn't rotate or is at least guaranteed to be replaced upon rotation. just to have something for new / casual players to feel they don't have the looming fear of rotation (real or not) hanging over them. once you have that i don't see the harm in drastically increasing ll points. may be interesting if they did something like 4x the available points but accumulation is multiplied by win rate.

[@DiceCommando]

It's a tough situation, for sure.

[@-Ambos-]

This is a very important video for me. I want to start FaBTCG and I clearly like Florian. But his cards are very hyped and so very expensive. So if I would make the investment and then he has a lifespan of like just one year this is a very expensive game.

[@just_gut]

I've been in the game for a few months now and I've seen enough for you to have earned my subscribe. Love the content. I would actually like a more diverse hero pool than what we have. I think a Lightning Brute or a Mystic Ranger might be more interesting to me than just straight class heroes (those are just examples, not things I've thought through deeply.) I do quite like the idea of re-introduced existing heroes for limited purposes, and I actually think that sealed product would be my preferred way to introduce new adult heroes into the pool. I know that heroes are relatively cheap online, but I think I would prefer stores have easy access to the sources of adult heroes, rather than them just sitting in majestic slots in packs. I would be even happier if each of the adult heroes were in the Blitz Box that comes with sets. I think that box is a wildly good starter product and I don't think it would ruin anyone's value by having those adult heroes in there. Then you can do something cool with the pack versions, like alternate art, in the Majestic spot while still maintaining the marvel treatment with that full art style.

[@Salsaprime]

As a new player myself recently, I've found the young/adult system cool, but flawed for progression. Most new players buy Blitz decks as an introduction to the game/hero. There's a disconnect with being able to take that Blitz deck and upgrade it for CC simply because the lack of the adult hero card though. As you said, the young/adult versions should just be in the Blitz deck so all a new player has to do is add a third version of some of the Bitz cards, or whatever they pull from boosters to make it CC viable. Instead they either have to hope the LGS has the adult version that they can buy from the bulk box (like I had to do), keep boostering until they finally pull the hero they want, or buy the single, which isn't an ideal experience. Tracking down which booster set your desired adult hero is in is not new player knowledge, and can be frustrating for something that should just be simple to get new players into the game.

[@DiceCommando]

Awesome, I glad you like what we do! Looking forward to more!

[@denselross]

Wow, this is a great video. Kudos for taking the time to articulate your thoughts, I honestly do think the community needs to talk about how much bloat there is, or how some heroes feel REAAALLY left behind. Again, great video and great points.

[@DiceCommando]

Appreciate that, thanks for watching!

[@andrewostman3135]

I like the idea of Hero reuse, but it adds a difficulty to itself too and that difficulty is if they're making sets years in advance. They have to be able to adequately predict the expiration of specific Heroes for example viserai because you knew I was going to use him. Has well over 700 points now. Let's say they want to use him for Monarch 3. They have to know he's not going to LL before then. I really like the idea of reentrant Heroes. I feel like they can fill in a specific archetype in a draft or even a set. But I do have a difficulty with them having to anticipate a meta a year in advance

[@heart1of1miles]

I don’t think that is a problem. When they started developing outsiders they knew very well that those heroes needed support in order to compete so developing tools for azalea and katsu was a no brainer. Now we can say the same about Olympia, Betsy, arakne, teklo, riptide they will still be here in 2 years unless a set directly supports them

[@heart1of1miles]

And even if they re release a hero with the same text even if he is close to LL I don’t see a problem with having a hero that is still legal in blitz and limited but LL’s that same season in cc thanks to the new support and is no longer legal there

[@StingrayP226]

I think a good solution here is have a Contingency plan... IE They develop and test a new Viseria card that they can pop in the set if the old LLs before the set release or can pop in an Expansion or supplemental set a set or two later. IMHO popular and well loved heroes getting new versions (Like with Prism) is good for a Hero game. So having a few tested and ready back ups could help if things get funny. Also limiting the reprints to underpreforming characters with nearly no LL points is a safe bet.

[@makai4036]

What's happening the most right now is that new heroes are "stealing" most of the season points this year: Kayo, Zen, Nu, Enigma and Aurora. And the only old ones that had a big highlight this year were Azalea who went from 200 points to second place and Viserai. I think they need to make specs focused on old heroes like Rhinar, Dori, Katsu, Dash and Bravo.

[@DiceCommando]

Indeed, that's definitely part of the problem statement(s) that I outline.

[@musicaddict1235]

Great video. Dont know if it makes sense number wise, but I always thought heroes should have exp modifiers attached to them based on how long they have been released. So the first 6 months of a heros less span, they may have a .8 modifier to prevent them from LL too fast, 6 months to 2 years have a 1.0 modifier, 2 years 1.2 modifier and so on. I know this wont fix they issue of dead wheight heroes, if Olympia isnt winning anything, it does matter what he modifier is, but thats where armoury decks and expansion slots come into play.

[@DiceCommando]

I'm not sure about the numbers either, but an "experience modifier" for heroes is interesting.

[@JohnSmith-ul2ce]

Woah! That is a very cool idea. Nice thinking

[@_AudX]

One other thing they could do to increase the "pool" of living legends points without having new heroes instantly LL is to increase the number of points a hero gets as they get older. Though this could also feel bad as a hero like viserai right now would have almost definitely LL'd mid way through this proquest season.

[@andrewostman3135]

I'll have to listen to your cast again when I'm not driving to do the numbers, but you do make a good point. The system sounds like The control Loop has a positive feedback.

[@HeavensMandate8040]

One thing not covered here is desired roster size. Perhaps they are ok with the current system bloating until they hit the desired roster size - at which point theyll adopt one of the measures youve mentioned to maintain roster equilibrium.

[@DiceCommando]

We'll see, depending on how many heroes are injected in 2025.

[@clarkmoore4]

I think you and LSS are on the same page with decreasing the number of new heroes printed. I think it was clear that 2024 was a special year where they wanted to rapidly expand the hero roster but even during the MST meta they were discussing it growing too fast. I recall Bryan Gotlieb asking the MnR podcast if they felt like the roster was getting too large and being surprised at their answer of "no".

[@DiceCommando]

I imagine Brian is very worried about it from a long-term outlook standpoint - he's likely playing with 2025 heroes today.

[@vioryalina8371]

I think that the point values for various events could also be adjusted to help combat this. A concern that the players could be upset about it at the time, but it seems like an easy to adjust value that doesn't require adjusting set design, but if they get it super wrong it could even be rolled back to previous values & the LL points could be reset/scaled down to the old rates in an emergency. It could also be done as a stopgap between recognizing the problem & when any other slower solution is found and implemented

[@williambennett4481]

Great video

[@DiceCommando]

Thanks for watching!

[@williambennett4481]

@@DiceCommando you’re welcome, I enjoy these more analytical discussions about the game.

[@Morventhus]

Re entrant heroes and adding new cards for them in the draft fixes the expansion slot issue.... There also is the option of if we have a hero gaining no ll points for say 4 years... They fail on their legend journey and retire out.... Instead of expanding on the expansion slot to aggressively fix a hero that may never out match newer ones

[@Salsaprime]

I like this idea actually to get rid of what feels like artificially making it that character's time to win and be meta just to LL. For there to be winners, there must also be losers, and I feel that makes the lore richer. If they're reusing heroes, then they can retune the retired hero to actually work better without being overpowered.

[@jonathangedeon1875]

LL has felt like the best system in terms of 'rotation' among TCGs for me, although it is not without its issues. Like most systems, I assume it is working towards homeostasis as best it can with LSS continuously adding heroes. Because of the extreme number of variables associated with card games, I believe that balance in all formats needs to be managed by a dedicated team and i dont know if lss has the manpower to do that (

[@DiceCommando]

It's definitely one worth preserving, for sure! The trick is the how, finding that right balance.

[@isaachudson9108]

I feel like you forgot the money side with your suggestions, even though I agree. For long-term health of the game they need to stabilise. If LSS was a publicly traded company (is it?) then bloat would be immediately embraced and the game would quickly die. They can have more LL points per season, they just need to be really really tight with balance to stop new heroes rotating too fast. Unfortunately that's very difficult and the accepted wisdom is that new heroes need to be very strong (which I think is a mistake - new heroes will be popular even at mid tier)

[@DiceCommando]

I definitely consider the need for sales in my proposals, hence why they wouldn't ever want to do a 'completely re-use' model.

[@clintbonds4770]

Another proposal would be to dial back the win rate that is acceptable. If zen had been winning 10% of skirmish events the velocity would have been much lower and would then have not been in conflict with the bloat because the total LL points could remain high.

[@roecker54]

Great discussion. Go commando

[@DiceCommando]

Thank you sir!

[@thearmedpit]

To make this balancing act even more complicated, they still need to grow the game. The game is getting into more markets, and the number of events will unlikely decrease anytime soon, meaning even more potential points to account for.

[@DiceCommando]

Excellent point. At what point are PQs worth 0.5 points, right?

[@andrewostman3135]

I don't know if anybody would like to hear it or not and I know they were in great sellers overall, but maybe they should look into supplemental sets. My thought process behind this is to change the meta without necessarily adding new Heroes. I think maybe that's where their numbers went a bit. Squiffy is because they did have sets where they didn't introduce new Heroes in CC

[@DiceCommando]

That's definitely one of my recommendations

[@retrofraction]

I have been waiting for a supplemental set for ages, DtD didn’t count in my mind since it was Monarch focused like BL. I also agree they need to expand the expansion slot and start target focusing the lowest 10%. I think 1-2 heroes per class is ideal, 3-4 leads to too much overlap and class base balance issues.

[@aburkitt11]

What about the possibility of artificially increasing the available number of LL points by having a hero get a multiplier to LL points based on their age? You could even have brand new heroes such as the MST heroes for MST season start at a 0.5x multiplier for only their season specifically to slow the rate of brand new hero rotation and allow LSS to make the necessary bans to balance new heroes, but have heroes that have been around for more than 1 year get 2x LL points, and increase the multiplier by 1 for every year they remain in the pool.

[@MTGWolfMan187]

I was new to fab started with new kayo and then zen spent $1000+ to get my to decks to competive standard then My main deck zen LL and gets hit with bans. I have busy job only got to play deck 2 times before it got hit. I will never buy any packs or singles anymore. I only pick up blitz decks to have casual fun. I basically quite this game. Just can't justify spending shit loads of money just to play new hero to get LL or banned.

[@DiceCommando]

That's a tough situation to be in.

[@hediomixael]

to me its simple, some times release sets only with old heros. I realy want some WTR 2, give some buff to dori, katsu, rhinar and bravo.

[@slx]

They could expand the LL points to 2nd+ place heroes, its easy through in marketing terms like being 2nd+ gains notoriety and you get less points. You really look at top8 or day2 for balancing issuing anyway. if the expectation is that heroes LL in 18 months, then you really are looking to phase out 18 heroes every 1.5 yrs. This is assuming they release on avg 12 heroes a year, assuming if LSS wants this current size pool to be maintained. If they release less heroes then they jeopardize limited (a staler format or loss of hero identity) which has been their thought process at getting people to play more.

[@DiceCommando]

To your point, I have always wondered if granting points to top 8 placers would be something to look into. That way say someone getting say 3x into top 8, demonstrating meta dominance, but not winning... still reflects their impact on the meta. I like where your head is at, and I agree. Just not sure how it would land/be implemented.

[@DiceCommando]

The drawback to that of course being, say, a finals mirror-match would essentially double-dip. Maybe a problem, maybe not... but interesting!

[@slx]

@@DiceCommando if a top 4/8 has the majority of 1 hero maybe more pts should be given to that 1 hero, over representation is a good indicator of an unhealthy meta. Personally I don't mind if a hero LLs in less than 6 months. It is a learning opportunity for LSS, and is only a real issue if this happens multiple times. If you take away Zen's tools to prevent him from LLing too fast but then no one wants to play him isn't that just the same result by a different name?

[@skair5425]

Completely agree with this. Improving the spread of LL points earned would be more representative of which heroes are actually doing well in the current meta.

[@makai4036]

@@DiceCommando I like the idea of ​​earning a minimum amount for reaching the top 8 or even the final

[@focusflute]

Not every hero can be exactly equal in power to the others. Some def need some new cards (Teklovossen) but most just need a card or cards to help them in auto lose MUs

[@riddleTCG]

Great stuff

[@DiceCommando]

Thanks! Appreciate the kind words!

[@Edwin20er]

I'm gonna toss this out here, but please note this is a new player's perspective. What if we didn't make every hero a playable (And I mean this literally) Adult and Young Hero. We already have 3 Young Heroes that don't have an adult version, but by doing this you could print heroes that make it a point of having explosive turns without breaking Blitz while still allowing for those turns to have a place in CC. It fixes a design space where said explosive turns can fire off, helps to prevent bloat in CC, Helps to slow velocity in Blitz (as there are more heroes that can come out in draftable sets). And LSS can temper heroes in CC, giving more time to test as they're only releasing new heroes as Expansion slot heroes or in Armory Decks or Showcases. I even would go so far as to say that LSS has started to embrace this idea to an extent with the two Earth Heroes in Rosetta, as they require twice the setup to turn on in CC as Blitz or Limited formats. I can't remember if it was you or another KZbinr I followed who suggested the Idea of Blitz Heroes having 3 Int rather than 4 to avoid the exceptionally explosive turns that can come with a 4 card hand. But once again, if LSS Chose to go that route, there would be a distinct identity between a blitz and CC Hero. As for Specializations, New Moon and Ledger of Ancestry can both play anything Enigma would spec into, and Ledger feels like an evolution of New Moon. So the Idea is not that far from one I would look into, just one new player's opinion, but it feels like it solves more questions than it creates, would love to have some veterans' ideas on this.

[@playtimetcg]

Ideally the heroes that should be LLing are the heroes that have been in the format the longest. So as you suggested, using existing heroes for new sets should focus on older heroes to begin moving them out of the format. I do realize that may be less exciting for some players but it will also help the investor side of FaB and make the game healthier as a whole.

[@playtimetcg]

great video by the way, really enjoyed it

[@DiceCommando]

That's a great point and at least on the surface, seems like a very sustainable approach..

[@LastingSilence]

I'm currently more concerned by the growing bloat than I am with the velocity. As more and more heroes are added to the pool and so few rotate out it will just keep slowing down and the existing points get distributed across more heroes. I'd prefer if they just upped the LL points given out and introduce a seasonal hard cap of LL points a hero can earn to avoid them leaving too quickly. If they for example locked it so a hero cannot get more than 300 points in a PQ season they can regulate the velocity while still allowing the other winning heroes to accumulate points at a quicker rate. If we have another year like 2024 with only heroes 1-3 leaving the format it's going to look like such a mess by the end.

[@DiceCommando]

Remember, that as the bloat increases it actually provides less of a buffer for an over-powered hero. If they come in and grab 30-40% of the larger points (due to the larger pool) they can LL in a shorter period. It's all related to each other... tricky tricky!

[@borghe]

ummmmmm... wow, what a great video!! some quick thoughts the idea that "every hero" has to be accounted for in CC isn't exactly correct. plus the same issue exists in LL. what ACTUALLY has to be accounted for are archetypes.. aggro, control, fatigue, "runeblade", "guardian", etc.sure I could go on but hopefully you get the picture. of course there are delineations in all broad categories.. but that isn't any different than "secret sauce" from real deck builders to disrupt the meta of a particular event. I appreciate LSS' goal when it comes to design, intended rotation and steady state, etc.. overall I don't think it's realistic. they can only test every hero and every card interaction so much before it makes it to the player base.. even if they did a "public beta".. which is incredibly hard to do for a purely paper game.. (most are not going to give up their limited face to face time to play an "un-counted" format).. you just don't know how a hero is going to TRULY act when given to tens of thousands of players and thousands of pro deck builders. I feel they would have to be constantly adjusting (aka multiple times a year) that LL points and or events.. all of these downsides aside.. I DO think how LSS has handled the idea of "rotation" as IMHO the best in the industry. LSS realized before everyone else.. that it's not the cards that create a meta.. but the "shells".. which LSS has distilled down to the heroes themselves. by rotating those shells.. instead of the card pool.. in most cases (equipment and a few specs aside) all of the money players spend on cards is largely left alone and legal in CC.. and even if equipment relevancy rotates out as a result (Aria equipment for a while for example) it's easy to bring it back with new heroes.

[@DiceCommando]

Yeah, it’s a tricky problem! It’s a huge balancing act to make sure the format stays fresh and fun.

[@clarkmoore4]

Bloat may also not be as much of a problem as you've outlined. Like you mentioned, the biggest problem Bloat creates is an increasing difficulty in balancing and designing new products. However, thanks to LSS class-and-talent oriented system, they only really need to consider meta ramifications for a narrow slice of the meta each release; yes, there is a wider context but it's not the same thing as Magic where every card printed has potential interactions with every other card printed and legal in the set. Within this context, I believe there is an acceptable level of bloat. You also make an assumption in your point calculations that each hero must LL within the noted rate. I believe that points don't need to be added as aggressively as they have been, it's fine for heroes to stick around longer than 18 months. It's just that heroes shouldn't be gone *before* then. Some injection of LL points is good, but you can help direct which heroes those points go to. For example, putting more points into big events means that you want point distribution concentrated into pro play whereas directing those points into PQ's or RTN's may result in a wider distribution of the points available in a season -- ensuring that heroes lower in the meta continue climbing towards their eventual LL.

[@DiceCommando]

I appreciate the comment

[@DamonHart]

Good stuff btw.

[@DiceCommando]

Appreciate the kind words!

[@DamonHart]

They don't need to keep on adding cc heroes. When they make the set they could just make them in blitz. At least for a while until the bloat goes away.

[@DiceCommando]

Re-use seems to be a strong option.

[@HaoticSystem]

Is FaB a hero-centric game or a class-centric game? Some classes of heroes have a lower average velocity than others. Not sure what the numbers are, but I'm confident that it varies among classes. With that in mind, how do think the Mastery Packs play a role in this? Could Mastery packs positively influence your third option that you recommend?

[@DiceCommando]

I think I see where you're going with this, but I think it's pretty difficult to model that. One could look at Ninja during MST and say 'wow ninja is strong' when the reality was it's Zen... and regardless, Zen is the one that LL's, not all ninjas.

[@HaoticSystem]

@@DiceCommando Right. Classes don't LL. Good point. Definitely an intriguing topic.

[@DiceCommando]

This is intriguing to me though, as a question, and I'll have to run the numbers. I expect Guardian to be a train-wreck, though, as it includes both the fastest-ever hero (Starvo) and the slowest-ever hero (Betsy).

[@JustinSlayton]

If the living legend format was better than the LL system would be better. But some heroes will always be better on LL because Monarch amd Tales was so strong

[@brandont4259]

Personally, as someone who likes a large hero pool and wants to continue to see lots of new heroes annually, I think another possible solution would just be this: Cap the LL points for a hero each season (excluding major events like worlds) or for a set time period, and when that hero hits that threshold they are required to receive some card ban(s). E.g. Each set is a season, and a hero can only gain a maximum of 450 LL each season, but the week that they hit the 450 cap, LSS weakens the hero with a ban. The goal would be for the threshold to be such that it only affects a few heroes per season, and that the ban takes the hero down to a tier 2 or 3 power level, to quickly make room for LL points to continue to flow in on other heroes. Personally I just hate the idea of a hero coming into the game, and LL'ing within 6 months, that just feels awful to me.

[@DiceCommando]

I like this in concept. I do think LSS has shown a hesitancy to ban new cards (aka recently printed ones) and instead prefers to go for older cards.

[@nerdcoregaming6468]

Also, I think the threshold itself really should be looked at. 500/1000 is super easy to remember, but I feel like realistically 750-900 is probably more accurate to the velocity they want. 😊

[@DiceCommando]

If they dropped the points, they'd actually see heroes go even faster. Realistically the target points are just a number, and everything revolves around it. What really drives the balance is the # of injected heroes.

[@pengwnbuster]

I think it'd be cool to have sets inject life with older heroes. If they make alt versions of reinar and katsu and provide more unique moves for them, that would be pretty cool and help the old ones too. They should also make an armory deck for Ira since her ability is so simple and is a great entry point

[@kalientei]

They are.

[@Marc-gj9vx]

I don't understand why hero bloat is a problem. Just look at Magic Modern format, there's dozen of thousand of valid cards and a lot are not used. Not a problem.

[@DiceCommando]

FaB is very different than Magic.

[@danielcruz4960]

I'll just say that hero "bloat" is really a non-issue heros do diversify decks but in the end unless you are talking about illusionist they all play according to class and more often than not your counter picks are revolving around specific strategies not specific hero (there are exceptions but you get the gist of it)

[@DiceCommando]

I appreciate the comment

[@triplea657aaa]

I think hero bloat is fine. So long as they're mediocre, I don't care if there's bloat. The only real challenge is making sure OP heroes get rotated within a reasonable pace while not making these heroes becoming banned too quickly.

[@DiceCommando]

Thanks for your comment. I believe bloat as a long-term trend is a problem. Just because it's not an issue today, doesn't mean it won't be in the future.

[@jeremylove7]

I don't think a goal ought to be to keep any given hero legal for 18 months. That kind of effort invalidates the purpose of the LL system. The system is meant to operate as a rotation sure, but also, and I think more importantly, as a failsafe for maintaining a healthy premier competitive format. If a Starvo or a Zen must rotate in a single season for the good of the format then so be it. These kinds of design and development mistakes are inevitable and LL is an elegant solution. But we hinder it from working properly when we begin fiddling with the numbers. The ascension of a hero to living legend ought to be organic and not endlessly manipulated. The greater the velocity at which heroes ascend ought merely to stand testament to just how legendary and loved they were.

[@DiceCommando]

That's their goal.

[@devonkillebrew6325]

Have a min LL point gain of 250 that way heroes are gone in 4 years

[@jordanlego]

The power creep is so real. I wish they would chill a little bit

[@isaachudson9108]

In theory the LL system should prevent power creep. In practice, power creep is preventing the LL system.

[@jordanlego]

@ hahaha I love this

[@xahjk]

The Hero bloat is not an issue, The game has to be actively managed regardless of the Hero Roster. If they print something overturned again (which they will) they have to ban it. Look at League of Legends we have some space to still grow. Personally having a lot of heroes is also a boon for the casual experience and Broadcasts.